On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:59:31PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > [added the list again] > -=| Giorgio Pioda, Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:19 +0200 |=- > > > If I were you, I'd try to make "make install" not strip anything, > > > patching if necessary[1]. The problem with dh_install approach is > > > that you have to check carefully if there is something new to > > > install every now and then, which leads to problems (as already > > > seen). > > > > > The world is nice because it is possible to find many different > > opinions... > > I see your confusion and I understand it. It is not so good feeling to > try to satisfy contradicting requirements. > > I, personally, will not sponsor a package that replaces a perfectly > working "make install" with broken dh_install usage. Even if > dh_install usage is fixed, I still don't like it. This, of course, does > not mean that nobody else will want to sponsor it. > Gentlemen, I am by no means an expert on debian, but as the upstream developer of peless, I have to agree with Mr. Damyan Ivanov on this technical issue. The history of Computers shows that whenever the same piece of data is stored/maintained in more than one place, they inevitably get out of sync, resulting in bugs and problems. As the developer of peless, I must insure that "make" and "make install" work properly. I do this indirectly by making sure that configure.ac and Makefile.am are correct. "make" and "make install" control the way peless is built and the way files are copied to their ultimate destinations. "make" and "make install" definitely must be used for distributions other than debian. Now I glean from the discussions you have been having, that if dh_install is used, then essentially the same information must be maintained somewhere else. History shows that this can not be good. For example, one of the next things I want to do with peless is to make sure peless properly publishes its .pot file as the first step toward making peless multi-lingual. When I do this, I will adjust the auto* control files to make sure that "make" and "make install" do the RIGHT THINGS(tm). But you seem to be telling me that if dh_install is used, that files relevant to dh_install must also be adjusted. This has to be bad. The same data being managed in 2 places, by 2 different people. I am by no means a debian expert, but it seems to me from what I have been able to glean from this discussion that dh_install is associated with a fundamental software management design error. This could be important with packages more critical than peless. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott@io.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
pgpg5AFskFQUP.pgp
Description: PGP signature